Sir_NutS

I liked the orchestral intro, and I think you should've continued that route with the remix, as the section with the electronic drums and synths feels much weaker. The drums are pretty simple and lack presence, There are some weird sound choices here, as there's a strange sound in the background at 0:48 which sounds like the sound Charging Chucks make when they jump in super mario world. Around 0:58 there's some odd accompaniment on the piano notes in the background that doesn't really fit well. The tempo change at 1:50 was not transitioned to very well and felt jarring, I felt the slow down towards the end worked much better. As for the arrangement I felt it was a bit repetitive and relied too much on the original melody being played verbatim without much interpretation, while the original sections and backings that were added didn't fit very well. Overall I think this remix is a good showing of where your strengths and weaknesses lie. I think the slower sections with the orchestral elements worked very well, and even when they had sparse electronic percussion or synth elements it was working fairly well, the other sections however did not work. I think you could explore more this side of things with your music, as my ears tell me there's talent waiting to be exploited there. As for this track I don't think it works as a whole because of the issues explained above. You can always hit our Workshop Forums for further advice. NO

The arrangement is too close to the original in both composition and structure, this is more of a cover than an actual remix. I didn't hear any new additions or variations of the original theme so this needs much more interpretation than what is presented. The sound design isn't bad but it's not great either, some of the tones don't mesh well with the mix, i.e. the low synth at 0:16. The drums seem awfully dry, and don't fit the mix very well. For a Dance-type of track they don't sound very electronic, more like a hybrid of acoustic and electronic drums. The kick was very flat and I felt the Bass lacked the presence and drive this type of remix needs. The ending is very abrupt. Overall production could use more work in the issues presented above but it definitely needs much more on the arrangement side to pass and it's a much bigger dealbreaker. NO

Sweet arrangement, I dig this. I wasn't part of the previous evaluation of this song, but it seems the main issue was that it was too short. I think you managed to lengthen the track naturally if that was the case, however, and I'm sorry if this feels we're pulling you in different directions, but I feel the track is about a minute too long. The motifs are repeated a lot, and the backing harmony is very persistent throughout the track. I also feel the track spends too long on sections without a driving beat, Around 3 minutes of the song feel more like a buildup than a main section. I think cutting on those meandering sections and focusing more on the main sections where the kick is driving the song will improve the arrangement. My biggest issue here though, is with the frequency balance and performance of a couple instruments. The bell sound (i.e. 5:07) is really piercing. I think you need to check your mid-high frequencies on it around 2k hz, as the resonances are very piercing right now. The harp could also use some better balancing frequency-wise, also needs to be reigned under control as it's changing amplitude too wildly between notes. On the positive side I loved the feel of the track, very dreamy but also fun. You managed to introduce a lot of new elements to the arrangement and add your own spin to things, and there's quite a bit of interpretation in there. This is really close and I would like to hear this with the production issues fixed and with a more focused structure, this is close to a pass for me but I can't overlook these issues. NO (please resubmit!)

Just stopping by to drop the easiest vote of my life. Fantastic arrangement with pristine quality and great humanization on everything. Big fan of the nuances infused in the flutes, the choirs towards the middle and the background drums and arpeggios that keep the pacing up in speed even though the legato strings are pretty upfront, it keeps the arrangement feeling dynamic. YES

Yes, *most* of it is execution related, but some of it is also related to mechanics, which are objectively simpler, and there's objectively much less stuff to learn. There's on the other hand 0 things that are less complex in 4, whatever way you want to look at it. As I said, it's fine not to like the game, but saying it's as complex as 4 or has the same amount of stuff to learn is objectively false.

I already linked the very best competitive sfv that there is in the above video. I can look up a mid-tier sf4 tournament and it WILL BE a showing of much more mechanical complexity. The execution and wake up game in sf4 was the great majority of the skill involved. In SFV that has been reduced to a much more deliberate mind gaming game, that is evident to anyone who watches the competitive matches. Again, no combo in the very best match that sfv has to offer is longer than 3 inputs, and I doubt I'll find anything longer than 5 inputs in the whole top 8 of that tournament. Maybe in the matches played by Ricky Ortiz who played Chun.

SFV has: 1-Ample input windows for combos 2-No 1 frame links 3-Shorter combos 4-Combos that don't require pixel perfect positioning 5-V-skills, which is just an extra skill mapped to a single input 6-V-trigger, which for the most part is used the same way as a Focus attack (extend combos) while being a simpler input, that can be called in any frame, not a specific one as Focus cancelling was 7-1 animation and frame data per input. A character in SFV has exactly 6 normal moves that don't change, sf4 has effectively 12 normal moves that change depending on distance. 8-No vortex or crouch techs 9-No option select (a couple have been found and are getting removed) 10-Less ultras 11-Much larger input buffer (not the same as large input window) SFIV has: All of the above in reverse, and nothing that is less complex than SFV. SFV is objectively a less complex game based on footsies, spacing and reading of the opponent, compared to 4 and 3. Fact.

This is what the top SFV competition looks like. 95% 3 input combos, spacing, poking, footsies.

I'm not saying sf5 is simpler or as simple as super turbo. I'm saying sf5 is MUCH simpler than 4 and 3. That's objectively true. It's fine to not like the game, I honestly felt the same about KI the past week when I tried it, I love to watch it in tournaments but I didn't like the feel of the game. But SF5 is a game with lowered complexity made to appeal to a wider audience than sf3 and 4 did, it's just objective fact. Also, sf5 is mostly about poking, spacing and mixups much more than 3 and 4. I dare you watch the last nor cal top 8 and find me a combo string longer than 5 inputs. hint: you won't. It's mostly spacing with normals and bread and butters. Finally, unless that ryu was v-trigger cancelling(once per round) or CA cancelling (once per fight most of the time), he CAN'T pull a combo longer than 4 inputs. So I don't know what your definition of "long" combo is, I don't think a 4 input combo is long.

Yeah but it simply does not have the same amount of complexity as 4 or 3. If you prefer games like sf2 where its all about normals and 2-3 hit combos that's fine, but there's really a big difference between 4 and 5 when it comes to complexity. Just look up the most complex combo you can get with Ryu in sf4 and then in sf5 and there's a big difference in inputs. More than that though, fdac added a LOT of complexity to sf4 combos, v-trigger canceling is incredibly simpler in comparison because it doesn't require repositioning or tight inputs and the actual input for activating it is just a button press. If sf4 had a complexity level of 10, sf5 would have a complexity level of 6. It's just that much easier to do anything. Also most bread and butters in 5 are 2-3 normals into special, with the exception of chun, and characters like Ken who have target combos, but those are incredibly easy to pull off because the input window is so huge you can pretty much press the button literally at any point during the activation of the first. Also as I mentioned, in sf4 you basically had 2 different sets of hits for close/far distances. That alone added A LOT of extra complexity because if you missed the 1-frame link and moved a couple pixels away before inputting the next button you would throw out a completely different hit with completely different frame data. It's just all MUCH simpler.

I like this arrangement a lot, the guitars reminds me of First Movement (Jumping Biz) by Electric Light Orchestra, and anything that sounds like ELO is going in the right direction in my book. The source usage is very hard to pick up, but can be noticed if the original is slowed down, mostly in some of the backings like the arpeggio which is being played by the guitar, albeit at a much slower pace (and different key). But as Deia pointed out, source usage is tenuous here. The arrangement however is solid and the different instruments work pretty well together. I find some issues in the production though. The guitars are badly eq'd and have some really piercing resonances to them around 2.5k, also the trumpets have a lot of mid-highs that are muddying down the mix. I loaded this song up on my DAW and did some quick eq'ing and toning down these frequencies did wonders for the entire mix, so I think you could do much better, having the original project file to work on. I recommend using this free tool to check your frequency balance if you can't hear the peaks causing the resonances. Also here's another free tool that you can use to do surgical eq effectively. I didn't have a problem with the hard panning of the guitars but other judges may. Also overall compression could be relaxed slightly. I think this is a great arrangement, I really really liked it. If the frequency balance on the mix is done correctly and the source usage checks out, this could get a pass. For now though, NO (please resubmit)

SFV is WAY less catered to the hardcore than 4 or even 3. SFV's timing window for combos is HUGE, as well as the input buffer, and the input amount for combos has been severely reduced and simplified. Also, outside of Karin, the movelist for characters is also small. To top that off, there are no variations between distance on normals, all of them are the same up close or far, which wasn't the case in 4 or 3. So I don't know why anyone would say V is more complex, it's objectively much simpler than all the previous street fighters. Also regarding the challenges, in 4 I couldn't get past challenge 14 or 15 on most characters because of fdac, 1 frame links and pixel precise positioning that was required around that point. In 5 I completed the Karin challenges in 12 minutes (I timed it) and it was mostly because I had to switch to the pause menu to figure out the move names, as they're in japanese and I don't know which is which.

Yeah I can see why this song can't get a pass, but I also can see positives about your submission. Your mix is balanced and nothing sticks out as piercing or distorted, which is a trait we hear in a lot of novice tracks. I do have to concur with Kris on all her critiques. The chip arp was very exposed, details and embellishments like these need to be included in the mix in a natural way, they need to be conspicuous but have enough presence to bring some detailing to the track, so try to blend it in so it doesn't take that much prominence on your track. It is also very dry, as Kris said. Your bass and kick are fighting for space, a small amount of sidechaining should help you here. I liked your drums, they are a bit lo-fi but they are punchy enough. A bit more splash on the snare could help liven the beat a bit. You could try eq'ing the toms separately from the kick because they're clashing a little. I recommend removing the sound that appears at 2:49, it doesn't fit the track much and it's way too dry. Regarding the arrangement, your structure could be more cohesive. The drums get removed for small sections, the breakdowns jump between sparse and busy too much, and your transitions aren't effective. The intro needs to have a better effect introducing your song. If you're new to music, try starting with a simple intro-verse-chorus-bridge-verse-chorus-outro structure, when you have that structure down try to shake it up a bit. This mix in particular could use a basic structure for you to build upon. I think you can improve if you keep working at it, don't hesitate to visit our Workshop forums! for now though, NO

Please provide a download link for future submissions. This arrangement is pretty sweet, but as Wes pointed out, the production is very barebones. There's a severe lack of humanization everywhere, and the sample quality is not good. I would actually like to hear a performance recording of this arrangement by the people who commissioned it from you. Anyways there's really not much to say as the production issues are very evident and come down to lack of humanization and poor sample quality. I also think that, for the most part, it sticks too close to the originals (Home Sweet Home is a good example) NO

Very high-energy stuff here. Some production issues tough, the sound design is pretty vanilla with some very thin synth elements. The sub frequencies get out of control in a couple sections (0:46 and 02:11), should try to reign those sections under control. The kick lacks power and gets obscure pretty easily in the sections where the sub is overpowering everything. This could be solved with some sidechaining, but the kick also lacks presence in the other sections so you may want to look into better eq/layer on your kick or perhaps different samples. The arrangement seemed fine to me, good structure with recognizable source usage while also adding your own original arrangement. More interpretation on the main melody would've been nice but this works too. I think this is close but the production is flawed enough to warrant some reworking. NO (resubmit)

I feel that a lot of effort was put into interpretation here, and I do like a lot the results, arrangement-wise. The pacing and structure were almost completely changed which resulted in something completely different but that retains the similarities to the original. I do have to take issue with the production here. The instruments and performances weren't belivable, that bass is really exposed, and I don't think the glitch effects worked in favor of adding an interesting element to the track, it ended up taking away from it in my opinion. A lot of effort went into the drum sequencing though, which is varied and appropiate to each section, but most of these instruments just fall very flat performance-wise, and even though there was effort put into humanization there's a lot of performances that feel mechanical. On a final note, I'm a big fan of dissonance in music, but some of it in this song sounds more off than what I'd consider palatable, and at some points it falls into disorder (the intro is a good example) Overall there's quite a lot to love here but also a lot of things I feel could be addressed. Leaving this vote open for now until I get home and give it a couple more listens, but leaning towards a NO. EDIT: After further listens, ended up favoring a NO here, so NO

Yep, as expected from Brandon, pretty fantastic, very clean production too. The ballad style combined with the super-happy tone that 95% of the kirby songs have posed a bit of a dichotomy, but I feel some aspects of the arrangement, such as the guitar solo which was more interpretative of the basic motifs, helped sober down the tone a little, even if some sections such as at 00:57 felt fairly whimsical. Overall lovely arrangement that hits the right cues for me. Loved the pristine clean production. YES

Really awesome.

I had a big issue with his previous submission regarding the piano sound, but oddly, I think it works better in this composition. Perhaps the pop/ballad nature of the arrangement fits better than a classical approach for this sound, although I'm still not a big fan of it. Needless to say, Shnab is a genius, and this arrangement speaks for itself. Beautiful performance filled with soul, and expansive interpretation. YES

I'll admit, this new ken skin is fucking hideous.

I LOVE this. Sadly I can't pass tracks just because I love them and this one has a couple things holding it back, and for this I have to side with Deia on almost every issue she has raised already. The performance on the lead was mechanical and lacked expression and emotion, but I disagree that the backings had issues, sure they sound cookie-cutter but they are performed naturally and fit the track very well. On the production side of things I felt the lead was a ta louder than it should. I also think some percussive elements could help elevate the track a bit more, even if it's just a few claps, a percussive hit or a shaker at some point to accentuate sections of the arrangement, it doesn't have to be a prevalent thing throughout the track but some percussive touches here and there would be great. FUN stuff but please give it the push it needs in the performance aspects, don't be afraid to push the arrangement more towards YOUR interpretation either. NO (resubmit)

Good idea here, although many similar takes on this theme have been done in the past before. There are several production issues to be found, first the overall compression seems too biased towards the kick and bass, and in some sections (specially in the climax) it's very hard to distinguish anything behind the sidechained rhythm. The breakdown around 2:45 is drenched in reverb and delay, way way too much. The drum samples are of good quality but the sequencing is very stale and boring. I know, this is trance, but some things CAN be done to the beat to shake things up a bit, interesting drum fills, variations for the breakdown, slight modifications at the end of the beat, or rolls. But I didn't hear any of that, and sequence variations were limited to taking off the kick at some spots. The mix has a lot of very high frequency content above 17khz, which could be either cut or toned down before the compression, as in some instances such as noise rises, it's overpowering the mix. However our ears tell us that the noise itself isn't enough to do so because the amplitude doesn't feel that high, but this is just because we can't actually hear those very high frequencies even though they're at least 3 db higher than the rest of the mix in these instances. My main gripe with this song is the arrangement however. Although it has many underlying energetic elements that keep the mix going, the song tends to meander about for too long in some sections without any significative evolution. However the biggest offender is the handling of the original melody, the breakdown has the original melody played verbatim on the piano, twice without change. Later the main synth lead adopts this same melody, however it's shifted 1/8 forward, which makes the whole arrangement feel off. It's specially noticeable when you alternate between the in-time melody and the next measure is completed by the shifted-forwards melody. I think around 3 minutes are dedicated to this melody without much interpretation going for it. I don't think this song is too far from our bar but the issues are glaring. I suggest trying to fix them and hit us up again with an improved version. Also, give your song a proper name. NO (resubmit)

Just co-signing this, fruity arrangement with tons of personality. Loved the syncopated beat, and the off-the-wall melody variations, which didn't feel too out of place in this sweet little piece. Not much else to say that the other judges haven't mentioned. This is perfectly themed for the album. YES

RIght on he first listen I noticed the repetitiveness was a problem here. both the first and second sections were based on a pretty repetitive pattern, with the addition of some elements over time, these additions however were spread out so the track didn't feel like it was changing much as it should. The transition to the second section was a clashing contrast to the first section, which in my opinion worked better because of the subtler and somber approach to the interpretation. The structure, being two separate sections with not much change or evolution, felt very rigid and the song got stale very quickly. The drum sequencing in the second section was very repetitive as well, and the samples themselves were pretty simple and uninteresting. I think it was a valiant effort to try to remix the original song but I think we need the track to be explored more with a more interesting structure and a more expressive approach to interpretation. NO

I can tell that the artist has a very firm grasp on structure and arrangement, it it indeed a beautiful arrangement, with cohesive dynamics between the different elements and a structure that flows flawlessly. The reason I didn't straight-up approve this days ago is the production. As Kris mentioned, the humanization of the strings is seriously lacking, the envelopes are pretty much the same for all notes (per instrument), and while this is very well masked in the busy sections, which are a highlight of the mix for me and beautifully constructed, it's exposed quite obviously on the solo instruments and on sparser sections where the legato strings are more upfront. Also, I did not like the mastering on this one, the volume is quite low, which isn't a deal-breaker for me at all, and specially on an orchestral track, but the frequency levels are not good at all, and running the mix through an analizer just confirmed what my ears were catching, a big clump of sound around the mids (1k-3k) and almost no brightness or air around the highs. I did some hacked-up eq on top of the mix and it improved it a lot, so I think the artist may be able to do much more with the original project file at hand. Really beautiful piece but I'm gonna ask for more work on the production side of things, humanization and eq'ing specifically. Right now these aspects distract me enough from an otherwise well crafted offering. NO (Borderline, Resubmit)